Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Doe v. Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis, 817 N.W.2d 150.

216 citing documents.

Tama May Boe Kerber, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Troy David Mack, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Paul, see also Day Masonry v. Independent Sch.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Abdiaziz Mohamud Elmi, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Brandow Properties, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Patti Amanda’s Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Mark D. Island, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kay L. Briden, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Paul, d 150, 163 (Minn. 2012) (stating that when considering the district court’s ruling on summary judgment, we need not adopt the district court’s reasoning).
All, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Paul , d 150, 163 (Minn. 2012).
, A21-0923 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Paul , d 150, 164 (Minn. 2012).
James Johanning, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Debra Lynn Johnson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Everest Stables, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minnesota Bank & Trust, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A minor, by and through her mother and natural guardian, Amber Nelson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Ellsworth Fretham, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Charlene Y. Latham, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
William O. Bradley, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Jomari E. Alexander, Sr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Paul , (quotation omitted).
City of Cambridge, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
William Miller, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Nathan Mead, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Paul & Minneapolis, (stating that exclusion of expert testim ony “lies within the sound disc retion of the trial court, and would be admissible at trial”).
Tunde Oni, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Scot A. Lacek, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Brian Madison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Paul , 164 (Minn. 2012).
Travis Colsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Paul, (explaining that appellate courts may affirm summary judgment on alternative grounds).
Mark Lanterman, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Klingelhutz Judgment, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
And we may affirm a grant of summary judgment “if it can be sustained on any grounds.”
Daniel Ashbach, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Independent School District No. 477, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Paul & Minneapolis, (explaining that the “underlying reliability, consistency, and accuracy of the theory” of an expert lie at “the heart of the foundational reliability question”)) (other citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Debra Sakrison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Paul, which means “[t]his court can, if it needs to, affirm summary judgment on alternative theories pres ented but not ruled on at the district court level,” Nelson v. Short-Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc., review denied (Minn. Sept.
Katie Aase, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Penelope Isleman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Paul , (stating that an appellate court need not adopt a district court’s reasoning and may enter judgment on any appropriate legal grounds).
Phillip Musselman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Paul & Minneapolis, (explaining that the “underlying reliability, consistency, and accuracy of the theory” of an expert lie at “the heart of the foundational reliability question”); (requiring a proponent of scientific evidence to show that the “methodology used [
Village Homes of Grandview Square II Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Melissa Casanova, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Karen Mattinen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Ramsey County Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
Paul , –68 (Minn. 2012) .
Joseph Z. Livingston, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Paul & Minneapolis , (M inn.
Colleen Cole f/k/a Colleen Wallin, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Midland Funding LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Francis J. Schumacher, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Farmers State Bank of Trimont, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
William Jepsen, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Eric Parker Dean, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tony Flattum, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Paul & Minneapolis, –68 (Minn. 2012)), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Thomas R. Blanck, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
SRRT Properties, LP, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Paul, (“Evidence is irrelevant if it lacks ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.’” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.